Right-wing bloggers trumpet Swiss ban on minaret construction as "VICTORY!"
Right-wing bloggers have cheered a Swiss referendum establishing a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets. The bloggers have termed this prohibition on building new mosque towers a "VICTORY!" that demonstrates that the Swiss have "at least partial immunity to the European Malaise."
Bloggers applaud Swiss election results
Geller says the Swiss "had the spine to take back their country," declares "VICTORY!" In a November 29 post to her Atlas Shrugs blog -- headlined "VICTORY! SWISS BAN MOSQUE MINARETS IN A LANDSLIDE VOTE" -- Pamela Geller commented: "The Swiss have hand [sic] enough. They actually had the spine to take back their country. I wonder how the religion of peaceniks will react...in their usual tolerant and pacifist manner?"
Jawa Report: Supporters of referendum "demonstrate at least partial immunity to the European Malaise." In a November 29 post, The Jawa Report blogger The Old Man of the Mountain wrote: "57% of Swiss voters demonstrate at least partial immunity to the European Malaise. The remaining 43% will be readily identified by the drool frozen in gobs at the corners of their mouths as they stare longingly at window displays of Odeur de ChevreTM brand articles de toilette."
Sweetness & Light: "[T]he protesters are right. It's not their Switzerland." In a November 29 post, Sweetness & Light's Steve Gilbert commented of the referendum, "Let's hope that the Muslims aren't so offended that they pull all of their drug money out of their Swiss bank accounts." After noting that the Associated Press reported that "About 300 people turned out for a spontaneous demonstration on the square outside parliament, holding up signs saying, 'That is not my Switzerland,' " Gilbert added: "For once the protesters are right. It's not their Switzerland."
RedState: Ban indicates "worries" about "militant Islam are global." In a November 29 post, RedState managing editor Erick Erickson linked to an AP article about the referendum, commenting, "Wow, worries about jihad and militant Islam are global."
I have the same concerns about "militant Christianity."
I refer you to history. World history.
But you gotta love some liberals who always feel the need to try and compare the very real and relevant threat TODAY from Islamic terrorism to "Christian terrorism". Not only are the number of people slaughtered in recent memory at the hands of both about as far apart as you can get, but there is hardly a worldwide effort currently being engaged in fighting "Christian terrorism".
Let me ask you Foghorn, do you do it to minimize Islamic terrorism or are you just a baseless fear monger trying to elevate "Christian terrorism"?
Either way, it's laughable and ridiculous.
We cannot ignore the fact that, throughout history, there has been massive amounts of violence and bloodshed carried out in the name of Christianity (Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials come to mind immediately). So, historically, Christianity has been responsible for the loss of much innocent life.
Now in the modern world, there are some pretty significant factors that we cannot ignore when it comes to religious fanatics in this country and religious fanatics in, say, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
An evangelical Christian religious zealout in America is, most likely, living in a decent house, driving a decent car, sending their kids to decent schools, etc. etc. The living conditions of a religious fanatic in America versus an Islamic extremist in Pakistan are far from equal.
But, the most important difference, concerns the flow of information. An evangelical Christian teenager in America could one day decide, "hey, you know what? I think I'm going to take a closer look at the Koran, cuz I'm kind of curious about Islam". It's not as if a Muslim teenager in an extremist Islamic society could one day go, "I think I'm gonna go to the library, and check out Mere Christianity and give it a read".
We are so lucky to have the freedom that we do here. We get to read magazines and books and watch television and gather information and make decisions for ourselves. Decide what we think is best. We are not forced to believe anything. And we should always remember that not everyone has that. A child born into an extremist Muslim society is fed, from the moment of their birth, a completely distorted version of reality and history that feeds the message of hate. And they never know anything different.
So it's easy to just say, "Islam is a religion of violence" or "Christianity doesn't have the same capacity for violence as Islam". But in doing so, we ignore the most significant differences that separate us. If we did not have the kind of freedom we have in America, I believe Christianity could have just as much potential to foster violence and hatred as Islam does in certain areas of the Middle East.
I apologize to those of you who have read a similar comment from me several times before, I have posted other versions of this many times.
Also, for the record, I am a practicing Catholic.
In regards to the freedoms that we enjoy in America with the availability of magazines, books, and other modes of passing information, why de we have Lists of Banned Books in practically every state, and this is applied to both adults, and children in schools. Do we really pretend to deny that our representative democracy is covered with a mystic hale of holiness when it no longer belongs to We the People - from the beginning we set out to be a special people, we became that in our imagination, in practice I sure hope we are not a doomed Imperial Power.
What books are banned and where? I'm aware of occasional local efforts that pop up here and there, but I'm not aware of anything in law anywhere.
To portray the terrorism that we see today as coming from the religion that these people respond to rather than to the entire culture they come from is shortsighted and bigoted.
Instead of the religion, it's actually the culture...isn't that bigotry? If anything I would think a religion would be a less-bigoted scapegoat.
But, to me at least, it does not seem bigoted to recognize the huge differences that separate our society from theirs, and to identify that their society is one that allows more easily for the development of religious fanaticism.
I mean, if you look at me and then look at a 22 year old woman born and raised in a village in Afghanistan...there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of things different between us besides just the fact that I was raised Catholic and she was raised Muslim. Why is it bigoted to recognize those factors? Should I pretend she's the same as me? Should I pretend that she will have the same opportunities to educate herself, to make her own decisions, to think for herself as I will?
2. How do you explain the islamo-terrorism that arises in countries like Spain/Great Britain, where even the poorest Muslims would have a roof over their heads and guaranteed healthcare?
But I'll take it in this direction. Crime is a significant problem within the black community in this country. A disproportionate amount of the prison population are young, black men. But it's not a reasonable (or at least I don't think so) conclusion to come to to just say, "Black people are more likely to commit crime by virtue of being black". To me, that's a bigoted statement. And it's a statement that overlooks all kinds of cultural factors that have an impact, like poverty, drug addiction, education, etc. and examining the over-reaching factors beyond that that have led to the development of the current situation. And again, for example, a 22-year old black female from a different socio-economic background is going to have lived a significantly different life than I have, in many other ways besides that we just have different skin tones and different financial backgrounds.
So I'm not sure about where the "pulling over" thing comes in. I mean, it makes sense to have a greater police presence in a more crime-ridden area, whether it's a predominantly black area or predominantly white. A police officer is going to be more likely to pull over someone he's suspicious of in a drug-infested area, regardless of race. I mean...right?
I don't know if this article will address your second point satisfactorily or not, but maybe it will, if you're interested: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/why_home-grown_islamic_terrorism_isnt_a_threat.php
That's because they're not.
If that's what you were referring to, I'm sorry. I totally did not mean to imply that you said that. I meant it purely hypothetically. Apologies!
So when people foolishly compare the two on any similar playing field, it's ridiculous. It would be like comparing Columbine to the school bully tripping some kid because his dad was a minister and he gets a skinned knee as a result.
I disagree.
Civilized society is not under threat. And you call me a fearmonger?
I'm more scared of some christian nutjob on marching orders from hate radio shooting up a church than I am of an Islamic-based terrorist attack.
That's because the christian nutjob could be living next door to me or attending my church. The Islamic terrorists are mostly overseas.
I don't live in fear. Of anybody (except my parents, of course).
It's about the LEVEL of fear. I'm not trying to elevate anything. Just stating my opinion. You of all people should appreciate that.
However if I ever make a comparison between Islam and Christianity, my point is not to say that Islam and Christianity currently represent equal threats of terrorism. My point in comparing the two is usually to demonstrate that religion, regardless of what religion it is, can be manipulated and perverted to justify horrendous violence (and you can find many examples of Christianity being used to justify mass murder throughout history).
I don't think that you can just say, "there aren't as many Christian terrorists as Muslim terrorists in 2009, and so making any comparisons between the two religion's potential for violence is ridiculous and laughable".
I thought foghorn's reference to reading "world history" as him pointing to the examples of violence carried out in the name of Christianity throughout history and therefore supporting the idea that any religion has potential for great violence.
I did not interpret it as a suggestion that Christianity and Islam are, today, responsible for equal amounts of terrorism.
Obviously one is more of a global threat than the other, in fact one IS a global threat and the other is NOT. So there is no valid comparison between the two.
However, I don't think it's invalid to bring up past examples throughout history of horrible violence carried out in the name of Christianity in order to demonstrate that Islam is not the only religion that has the potential to fuel hatred and promote violence. In that way, I think it's valid to compare the two.
I think I'm really just having a hard time grasping what you're saying here.
I mean, obviously, there is more terrorism carried out (and on a larger scale) in the name of Islam in this day and age than there is in the name of Christianity. However, when foghorn points to examples of terrorism carried out in the name of Christianity in both the distant past and more recently...why is that invalid to bring up?
I can recognize that, if one were to say that today, in the year 2009, Christianity is responsible for the same amount of terrorism as Islam, that is an inaccurate statement. However, if you want to point out that both Christianity and Islam have the potential for violence, and both have the potential to promote terrorist action, and you want to point to past examples of Christian terrorism to do that...do you still think that's an invalid point to make?
You just answered above what you couldn't grasp below.
"I think I'm really just having a hard time grasping what you're saying here"
From above: I can recognize that, if one were to say that today, in the year 2009, Christianity is responsible for the same amount of terrorism as Islam, that is an inaccurate statement. However, if you want to point out that both Christianity and Islam have the potential for violence, and both have the potential to promote terrorist action, and you want to point to past examples of Christian terrorism to do that...do you still think that's an invalid point to make?
And I disagree. I don't think foghorn was saying that Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism currently present the same threat. That is not how I interpreted his comment.
But of course RightON didn't mention that distinction that Foghorn made, did he?
He is such a dishonest hack - RightON, that is.
Here's what Foghorn said that RightON dishonestly references, btw. He was talking about danger to himself personally.
Here's what Dexter said
I don't think RIGHT ON was saying that making comparisons between the two's POTENTIAL for violence was ridiculous...he was saying that it is ridiculous that FOGHORN literally thinks Christianity inspires as much worldwide chaos and terror as radical Islam does, today.
And here's what RightON said in total agreement with Dexter.
That was exactly what I was saying. Thank you.
Later on, I think RightON re-examined the statement, and recognized his error. Good for him, but it doesn't change the false attack in the first place.
There is not one single Christian theocratic state in the world today--but that's not because of the virtues of Christianity.
Christianity is not as much of a terrorist threat today as Islam, but that's mainly because it's been defanged--and by a long and nasty process.
Hmmm, that would seem to be a case for nation building, or at least the way some have defended our going into Iraq or any other Muslim country. Pretty sure you didn't mean it that way though.
Rock and a hard place, I guess?
Still, if we strafe the country of a poor kid for months and all he's hearing from the state-run media is that the Americans are just attacking to kill civilians...will he love us any more than if we invaded and tried to nation-build? Bleh.
If we did that, Bush wouldn't have gotten his revenge war and Cheney wouldn't have been able to enrich his war profiteer buddies and Rove wouldn't have been able to paint the anti-war people as unpatriotic for political gain.
If we did that, Bush wouldn't have gotten his revenge war and Cheney wouldn't have been able to enrich his war profiteer buddies and Rove wouldn't have been able to paint the anti-war people as unpatriotic for political gain.
What we were fighting against before Bush got into office was terrorism too. What happened when Bush got into office was that he didn't fight against terrorism to any degree until after we were attacked on 9/11.
The religion of the terrorists isn't what drives them. It's part of who they are for sure, but they are driven by their hatred, not by their religion.
The Basques who terrorized Europe weren't driven by Islam. The crazies in Japan weren't motivated by their religion.
Muslims don't go around terrorizing the world either. A few thousand people participate in terrorism, and many of them are Muslim, but that doesn't equate to Muslims terrorizing the world. It's that bigoted viewpoint that poisons our debate on this topic.
Yes, that's how I describe Christianity.
All those happened in modern history.
Oh, and I would write an urgent memo to President Obama and urge him to cut off the funding for all wars we are currently engaged in around the world and bring our men and women home pronto. And deploy them to the St. Patrick's Cathedral right away.
He is commandeering the wrong mission.
We went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. It's not like the goal was to defeat Islamic terrorism as a concept or anything.
So to compare them with the effort currently being against Islamic extremists by our military is just another bogus comparison.
I agree that it's an apples to oranges comparison for reasons I've stated above. We don't have the motivation here to form large, radical groups committed to achieving an agenda by any means necessary. But I'm not sure that the miltary/LE angle is the way to go about making your case. It's perfectly possible to have a highly significant threat from radical Christians within our own country, and we wouldn't be launching military maneuvers on our own land anyway.
If an when your hypothetical is even close to happening or there is one shred of evidence to suggest that it might, then we can discuss it. And if it did happen, and it was "highly significant", then it would be doubtful law enforcement would be able to handle such a "highly significant" threat. The National Guard could and probably would be brought in.
In any event, my point was the way we have confronted them and the level of threat each poses. Not in the same ballpark.
I understand what your point was, you're just not making a logical argument here.
What part of this is unclear? I'm really not sure what prompts you to lash out when I'm not disagreeing with your underlying argument. I just don't think the path you're taking here is going to lead you where you want to go.
I guess it depends on your meaning of highly significant but to me that means very serious and the threat impacts a large number of people. Otherwise it would not be highly significant.
And I consider that an extreme hypothetical.
Do you have any rationale for opposing this besides an arbitrary and convenient determination?
I like to destroy your arguments as much as the next guy, but when you change the subject it kinda defeats the purpose.
I don't know how you can't see the difference there, but it is there.
....
.....
And were members of the diabolical worlwide organization of....
....
....
oh
The inquisitions.
The forced subjugation of native Americans in the name Christianity.
The war in Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8056207.stm
Of course, any religion can be twisted to justify any immoral and unethical action.
So condemning all Islam based on the immoral, unethical actions of those few who twist a peaceful religion for their purpose, is once again twisting religion (i.e. Christianity) to justify immoral and unethical actions, such as outlawing minarets.
See how this works?
Did you miss the adjective "modern history" or did you just muster an EPIC fail?
"Christians don't go around terrorizing the world."
Thank God (or Allah or your choice here) the U.S. constitution does not accommodate direct democracy. However, it is a favorite way used in Maine, California, and some 24 other American states to have the same effect on minorities as it did in Switzerland.
Direct democracy was one of Hitler's favorite tools to "prove" support for his policies. Not surprisingly, there's a little bit of Hitler still alive in Europe (and 26 U.S. states).
When is MMFA going to take up this subject? California is ungovernable with all of its propositions, Maine can't get a law passed and signed without fear there will be a mob rise up against it, and now we see what has happened in Switzerland.
Direct democracy is mob rule. For a reasoned argument against it, read Federalist #10 by James Madison.
When will the rest of the world learn?
I don't here you all left-wing nuts speaking up against censorship in the US... uh it's just Christians singing Christmas carols.. nope I'm not christian...
And if a minaret is a form of forcing your religion on others, then why is a bell tower at a Catholic church not classified as the same?
Also, why don't you give me some example of the terrible censorship Christians have allegedly suffered in this country?
There is no church in Saudi Arabia does not mean there should not be a mosque in US. If that's the way you want it, US will end up being no different than Saudi Arabia.
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah (God) never will It be accepted of Him" (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85)
"Abraham was not a Jew nor Christian; but an upright Muslim." (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:67)
It is the tribal culture used to conquer other people by any means
Old Man, are you seriously arguing that banning construction of minarets isn't discrimination against Muslims? Seriously? If it isn't, why are the right wingers so happy about it?
Huh.
But yeah, I know. You can't tell some people that - they just won't hear it.
Can we add restriction of religious freedom and promoting Big Government (to the point of running it like a condo homeowners association) to the long list of right wing hypocrisies?
The "prayers that are loud 5 times a day" issue is a little sticky, because I'm thinking they're louder & lengthier than Church bells, but I'm hesitant to restrict religious expressions...it would have to come down to noise ordinances I guess.THAT'S one I don't want to be on town council for!!
Who needs to symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus?
Pathetic. And that also describes your tolerance for other religions.
Those church bells calling people to prayer at these Catholic cathedrals. Who needs to listen to that...
It seems that the right wing press has given up on trying to justify their concerns with moral arguments; they have pretty much accepted that they are merely cheerleaders for whatever talking point the GOP wants repeated.
Randy
No one's taken the challenge to find willful patterns of distortions and lies in the MSM.
I've asked anyone who's complained about MMFA to post examples.
Nothing yet.
Are you willing to take the challenge????
HuffPo and DKos are NOT MSM outlets. Those are opinion sites. Now, FOX claims to have real news programs. I still don't see evidence of that, though.
Why come to MMFA, then complain that "liberals/Dems dominate this arena?"
When you jump into a lion cage, don't complain about the lions. You knew where you were going.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/11/30/swiss-minarets-tolerance-test-for-europe/?test=latestnews
Here are some samples.
I am proud of the Swiss. Finally a country who stood up against Muslims. Like so many have commented, you cannot build a church or synagogue anywhere in the middle east. But yet we are constantly apologizing. Why do we have to bow to them. Or I forgot Obama already has.
Muslim intolerance of basic human rights should be addressed before Muslim demands are met.
Yeah, it's me, all you superstitious blood-sucking cretins. Put this in your minaret and smoke it: those who have arts and science don't need religion. you have neither and are too lazy and stupid to figure anything out in time to save yourselves.
Bravo for the Swiss people, muslim can have their religion just don't infringe on mine. I would not want to pollute the air with that moaning sound that they use for the call to prayer. I don't want to hear it.
If muslim society/religion is so violent and or intolerent, why do you suggest we mimic them?
Was I saying that, or did I copy some posts from a hate-filled site?
Let us know when you figure it out.
There's a lot of talk about "I'M NOT GOING TO LET THE MUSLIMS FORCE THEIR WAYS ON ME..."
Yeah, tell me about it dude. I was just walking down the street with my mom, and like a dozen Muslims jumped out and tried to force her into a burkha.
That was like the third time this month. No wonder people are fed up.
I feel sham that you Swiss did that voting and still call yourselves a democratic people.
A Moslem friend of main told me yesterday "even if Europeans disrespect Mohamed we will still respect Jesses and even if they prevents towers of Mosques we will respect your Churches".
Swiss who voted "Yes", Sham on you.
OTOH, marijuana is legal.
While the Swiss are devoted to private freedom, the public space is EXTREMELY regulated.
I am, my sister assures me, too sloppy to live in Switzerland.
I have no doubt that it's that that the Swiss were voting against. Intrusion into the public space.
Minarets. Not Mosques, you'll notice.